Talk:The Shock Doctrine/Archive 1

Archive 1

Describing people

Describing people with adjectives like neoliberal & neoconservative needs to be done with care and needs to be well supported. If something describes themselves as neoliberal, then it will probably be fine to say "self-described neoliberal" with an appropriate source. If not, it should generally be avoided in articles not concerning the person. Calling someone a "shock therapy architect" should almost definitely never be done unless it's either an official title or a self-description term. Nil Einne (talk) 11:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted a edit which is in violation of blp. Troopedagain (talk) 23:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Åslund Was a key adviser to Boris Yeltsin and has at many points noted his role in the Russian Shock Therapy. Provided some one grafts a source to it there's no problem with stating the acknowledgedFreepsbane (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes but does he call himself a shock therapy architect? Do other reliable sources call him that? If not, the description should be removed. We can of course keep a short description of his role adviser role, but that's quite different from calling him a 'shock therapy architect' Nil Einne (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I have warned 99 that if he/she tried to make these changes again without discussion, I will ask for him/her to be blocked. Other editors are of course welcome to report him/her if they notice before me Nil Einne (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Synopsis?

I haven't seen many other articles about books that include a synopsis. Not that it's a drawback, but I find it doesn't really add much to the article? Should we keep it? --OpenFuture (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like it's suggested practice for book articles. See Bury_My_Heart_at_Wounded_Knee#Content for a short synopsis and Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel#Synopsis for a more detailed one. CRETOG8(t/c) 18:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, cool. Suggested practice seems also to have the synopsis before the reception/critique, I'll move it. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point, thanks. CRETOG8(t/c) 18:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

On the topic of the synopsis; at one point it says "and crafted economic policy that made the Russian oligarchs of 2020 possible." Is that referring to a newer edition of the book, or is the drafter of that statement extrapolating? Russian oligarchs were around in 2007 when the book was published, but it's not like she was looking 13 years into the future to write about 2020.

Putting labels on people and magazines.

I don't think labels on people like "economist" or "neoliberal" or "neoconservative" are helpful. This for a bunch of reasons: 1. If it should be done, it should be done consistently. 2. And that would be ridiculous. 3. It's often hard to classify people like this. 4. And many labels like "neoliberal" is more pejorative than enlightening. and finally 5. The political opinions of a person does not change the truth-value of what he says.

I therefore think we shouldn't add that kind of labels here. I see they had a similar discussion on Talk:Naomi Klein about mentioning that Stiglitz was a Nobel prize winner. I also see I broke this rule myself. I will fix this. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Significance

Everything in this section, except first sentence, is original research because none of the sources mentions Naomi Klein as an influence. -- Vision Thing -- 19:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the significance of the significance section. This book has stirred some debate. That's the significance. Does that really need to be mentioned in it's own section? And what does the speculations about the upcoming election have to do with this book? Nah. I'll delete that. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments on the new sections OpenFuture, the significance section has been expanded to make the relevance to Naomi’s book clearer for those with limited subject knowledge. Now to appreciate the significance of the significance section you first need to understand that right across the world there’s an ongoing debate between the Chicago School position, who assert that unchecked liberty for private power leads to the best possible world, and an array of opposing positions (nationalist, developmentalist, feminist, Marxist, social – constructivist etc) all of which have diverse agendas but remain united in asserting that a sizeable degree of public power is needed to check the tendency for self interested parties to exploit the free markets even at considerable cost to populations at large. At one end we have the raw form of neo-liberal policy which we’ve seen implemented in Iraq - at the other end we have the Scandinavian economies where moderately socialist policies are associated with some of the highest international rankings in the world, including per capita GDP. One hopes its now clear there’s a lively case that the degree to which neo-liberal policies are implemented can have a very significant impact on ordinary peoples lives. Now Naomi has said she doesn’t wish to be seen as a leader in the movement against Chicago School doctrine, nevertheless said movement is highly diverse and while one could name hundreds of significant actors its hard to pick out any individuals currently more prominent or influential than Naomi Klein and her books. Secondly some readers who have accepted the thrust of Naomi’s arguments are going to want to see some evidence that issues the book raises are going to be addressed, especially considering the emphases Naomi placed on a pure implementation of free market policies inevitably leading to torture. The information in the significance section hasn’t been widely presented in the main stream media. One can understand that it suits neo Liberal if the potency of opposing views are suppressed, but Wikkopedia is not a mouthpiece for the extreme neo-liberal viewpoint.Thirdly the section helps balance out the Criticism section, which in the interests of neutrality perhaps shouldn’t be twice as long as the praise section given the often very positive reviews this book received.

Now granted a significance section is innovative for a book article, and if even one experienced Wikkopedian without an obviously neoLiberal POV wants to remove it I’ll accept their decision. But I suggest someone who clearly hasn’t even read the relevant suggested practice ought not to take it upon themselves to delete a section. You’re very welcome to email or ask here if there’s anything else you’d like clarified. Please do not unilaterally remove the Significance section again. FeydHuxtable (talk) 31 August 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with a significance section at all. But you have to then provide references that the book has any significance. And your significance section does not. None of the articles you refer to even mention Klein or the Shock Doctrine, except the first one which is a book review saying that the book *should* have, not that it *has had* significance. So can you please provide references? If not I'm forced to conclude that Vision Thing was correct and that this constitutes original research, and then we need to remove it. I'd much rather see a referenced significance section.

I can understand your frustration that the criticism section is longer than the praise section. It should be noted here that neutrality does not mean that you write equal amounts of positive and negative texts, but that the standpoints are presented in a neutral light. You won't for example find people complaining that the article on rape is POV because we don't have equal amounts of texts explaining how great rape is. :) In short, it's easy to find faults, and hard to find somebody significant willing to defend it against the criticism it has recieved. This will (and should) by necessity be reflected in this article, any thing else would be POV. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Im sure you were forced to conclude that most reluctantly! OK I can't fault the removal if its for the same concern Vision_Thing had. Some actors are aware of Kleins work but clearly its only one of hundreds of considerations suggesting the need for tighter regulation. It may take a while to find the sort of references you require. Still the good Lord always provides, and there are other contexts where the information in the Significance section will not constitute Original Reasearch. :) FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, very reluctantly, it would be much better if we could have a section with referenced sources stating what impact the book has had. As you say, she is not the only one nor the first one to suggest that there should be more regulation, so it's extremely hard to prove that her book had any influence on that. The unique theory of hers is that neoliberals actually promote and welcome crisis, and that theory has been thoroughly debunked. The rest in her book isn't particularly unique. If you can find good reliable source for the book having any actual significance, a significance section would be great. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess you choose the words 'promote' and 'welcome' very carefully OpenFuture. You're analyses isn't completely false but it requires clarification. Naomi is careful only to assert that neocons welcome the opportunity crises afford for profit and for enforcing their ideology, not the disaster itself. And she backs this point up with numerous well sourced quotes from the neocons themselves. Naomi specifically denies asserting neocons deliberately engineer crises in chapter 21 of her book, a point even one of your critical reviewers accepts (see bias section). Naomi does assert that free markets have an innate propensity to create unintended crises, a very well grounded claim which echoes for example George Soros's 1998 book "the crisis of global capitalism" and also an extensive body of recent literature by professional economists. Hopefully its becoming clear that your critics have not only failed to debunk Naomi's book, they've either failed to understand her or have deliberately fabricated straw men. Its also not correct that the theory you identified is unique, if anything her original contribution was being the first significant person to talk about a 'disaster capitalism complex' . But Naomi's great achievement was to present her synthesis to a mass audience in a "Lucid , calm, impeccably researched, gorgeously readable" book -Peter Carey . Widely accepted public truths matter much more than new truths when it comes to effects and success in the real world. Perhaps you could use my talk page if you wish to discuss further, or if you reply here I'll use yours as I guess we shouldn't clog this discussion page with lenthy debate. FeydHuxtable (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Stop trying to imply that I don't mean what I say. 2. This is not a forum for political debate. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I removed the section while waiting for you to dig up some references. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Grammar and bias issue with: "However in fact it has generally..."

"However in fact it has generally been used whenever a government is trying to enforce extremely unpopular policies, be they left or right wing."

Changed to: "However, in fact, torture has generally..."

'However', when used at the beginning of a sentence to mean 'nevertheless' should have a comma according to Mignon Fogarty.

However, this is not just a minor edit because I am not sure if this statement belongs in the middle of the synopsis section. Is this a critique? It is confusing (to me, at any rate) to include it in the synopsis if it is a critique. I cannot tell if it is the authors message or if it is a rebuttal. fogus (talk) 07:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

good point Fogus. It was a rebuttal, I've removed it as it doesnt belong in the synopsis. Klein emphasises the use of torture by those implementing neo-Liberal policies, she doesnt mention its use by left wing regeimes at all that I remember. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Bias?

This article seems to be biased and in violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. It mentions (in one sentence) that the book has received many positive reviews, but doesn't bother to go into any detail about the substance of those positive reviews. It then devotes several times as much space to the negative reviews, including a lengthy block quotation. (And what a weird block quotation! I don't think a short encyclopedia article needs to devote this much space to a relatively minor point about Boris Yeltsin, given that Yeltsin is not the focus of the book.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.149.15 (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes 76.10.149.15 , I am in agreement. The Neutral_point_of_view policy says we should be "representing significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias." Even the Cato Review from the criticism section dwells on the positive press the book's received from established reviewers. A few minutes research should indicate that positive reviews from significant sources outweigh negative ones perhaps by a ratio in excess of 5:1. As justification for the criticism being twice as long as the praise section its been suggested on this page that the fact its hard to find somebody significant willing to defend the book against it's criticism should be reflected in the article. For starters this argument seems to rely on some novel assumption that's not present in the NPOV policy –which suggests simply that views should be weighted according to the prominence they've received in significant sources. Secondly it may well be that few significant writers will see a need to defend Naomi's highly acclaimed book from what is demonstrably a self contradictory mess. For example the Tyler review from the criticism section claims Klein argued free market supporters deliberately create crises "the reader will find a series of fabricated claims, such as the suggestion that Margaret Thatcher created the Falkland Islands crisis" whereas the Time review , also from the Criticism section , clearly refutes this : "she refrains from suggesting that disasters were purposefully manufactured" . All things considered NPOV would seem to demand we make the praise section several times longer than the criticism, however for now I've only expanded the praise section to roughly equal size. The attentive reader may well find the critic's close to hysterical arguments amusing and further proof, if any was needed , for how right Naomi is about the advocates of free market ideology. FeydHuxtable (talk) 23:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the comment you reply to is about a much earlier version of the page, and that it has been significantly rewritten since then, and in fact, all the complaints 76.10.149.15 has since long has been rectified. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• don't be a paranoid. it just said that the critique only pointed out a part of the book, not the book as a whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.19.76.120 (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I think "76.10.149.15" is confused about what unbiased means. Unbiased doesn't mean that you have to write just as much positive things as negative things. Nobody would do that about Charles Manson, for example. :) The book has had many positive reviews. The lacking detail of "substance" is probably because there isn't any. --Regebro (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think a better example of bias, though small, is the line "it was named one of the best books of 2007 by The New York Times." This line suggests that it was included in the "10 Best Books of 2007" article published by the Sunday Book Review. This series of articles that the Sunday Book Review publishes yearly is very reputable. Thus the line "it was named one of the best books of 2007 by The New York Times" lends high reputability. In fact, The New York Times Sunday Book Review did not include the book in their "10 Best Books of 2007." Instead it was named one of the best books of 2007 "when the art and architecture critics of The New York Times were asked to choose their favorite books of 2007."[1]Taking into account the actual source of the endorsement, the line lends much less credibility and reputability. I think the line would be less biased if instead it said: "it was named one of the best books of 2007 by the arts and architecture critics at The New York Times."Tgia (talk)

I agree that bit's misleading, so I've pulled it out. Given the limited context (arts & architecture) it's unclear it belongs in the article at all, but if someone feels it does, they can figure out a more accurate way to represent it. All the same, assume good faith that it wasn't deliberate misrepresentation. CRETOG8(t/c) 21:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The book is one giant strawman with respect to Friedman and Klein thinks that Argentina is how a South American economy should be run. She is a dunce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabaton10 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Aslund and Critical responce issues

I didn't think [NJGW]'s alterations quite captured the NY Times article, so I just quoted it and let the text speak for itself.MKil (talk) 00:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)MKil

I think the inclusion of [Aslund]'s viewpoint is a total mistake. The statement unclear and is from a POV source. It should not be used. They guy hasn't read the book, and we don't know what description he's commenting on (including who made the description, what aspects of the theory were in the description, or how clear the description was). We don't even know what he feels is absurd about it. He's also biased as he had an upcoming book with a competing thesis. I hope you'll see the issues with this source and remove that sentence. NJGW (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are so opposed to this. Since the person being quoted was directly involved with some of the issues described by Klein I think his opinion is pretty relevant. I also fail to see how you can reconcile your actions against including this sourced quote from a very relevant source when you chastised me for removing a poorly-written unsourced insertion a few days ago. It seems that you don't have a very consistent standard here.

Also, nowhere in the article does it say that Aslund has not read the book. The quote from the article gives a very accurate description of what Aslund said and in response to what. Trying to infer would be a mistake.MKil (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)MKil

From the review:

Mr. Williamson, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, has not read the book, but after a brief description said, “It doesn’t sound like she has a full appreciation of my position.”

Anders Aslund, also at the Peterson Institute and the author of a forthcoming book, “Russia’s Capitalist Revolution: Why Market Reform Succeeded and Democracy Failed,” labeled a description of Ms. Klein’s argument as “complete nonsense.”

It's pretty clear that Aslund hasn't read the book. No reading between the lines required. Also, any real life connection Aslund has to the topic of the book has to be clearly laid out, as not doing so is a NPOV problem.

Most of the criticism section is questionable actually... there's far too much weight given to Norberg, and it's strange to balance "Nobel Laureate and former Chief Economist of the World Bank, Joseph Stiglitz" and the huge positive reception the book got with such a long and detailed crit section. The Washington Post review (which you might expect to be slanted to the right) actually equates Shock Doctrine's importance to The Clash of Civilizations--that's some pretty heavy praise. Not quite the impression a casual reader might get reading through the criticism section. NJGW (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as Aslund's quote goes, the quote I included from the Times says this: Aslund ""labeled a description of Ms. Klein’s argument as 'complete nonsense.'" You can infer from this quote that Aslund didn't read the book. However, it's not stated explicitly and, since the full context of his quote is provided, then the reader of the article can infer that, too. It's improper to inject your opinion that Aslund didn't read the book. And I think it's pretty clear why his opinion is included. Klein talks about the Russian economic policies in her book. Someone who was involved with designing these policies is certainly a relevant commentator.

Is Aslund commenting on her description of Russian economic policies, or her description of US econ policies, or her description of Milton Friedman's theories, or... we don't know because it's totally out of context. Perhaps he's labeling the description itself complete nonscense, and feels that the book is great. Perhaps the description he heard was so garbled he didn't know what to make of it, but knows nothing about the book. Perhaps he wasn't even listening, but because he was involved in some of the events Klein critiques and has a competing book on the market, Aslund has a wp:COI in commenting on an alternate theory. The rest of his statement insinuates that Klein's book says we shouldn't do anything, and that he feels political scientists shouldn't be in government... two rather odd suggestions that seem to have nothing to do with the book (and probably a lot to do with his book). NJGW (talk) 13:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I also think it's quite proper to include a lengthy criticims section. The book makes a variety of claimes which are, to say the least, controversial. Those who have studied it, especially Norberg, have concluded that Klein's work is riddled with errors. Giving the reader this opinion surely isn't a bad thing, is it? And while you may say that there was a "huge positive reception" for the book, that reception came almost exclusively from the political left. Those who are actually familiar with the works of Milton Friedman and the political events described by Klein -- people who have an expertise on her topic -- were far less positive about her work. That certainly needs to be noted.MKil (talk) 11:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)MKil

I'd expect "Nobel Laureate and former Chief Economist of the World Bank, Joseph Stiglitz" to have a pretty good idea of the subject, and he seems to think that "the case against these policies is even stronger than the one Klein makes." I'm pretty sure Stiglitz would know a thing or two about Friedman, and I imagine such an opinion should carry more weight than Norberg. It's totally valid that mistaken details can be pointed out, but where is Norberg's commentary on the basic theory itself? The point isn't that the article shouldn't include the criticism, but that the little nitpicking details section should not overshadow the rest of the article when that isn't the most important aspect of this book. NJGW (talk) 13:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd also expect him to have a good idea of the subject. But the fact is that all he did was write a review, and the positive quotes in the article is pretty much the only substance he gives except repeating Kleins statements. Johan Norberg, howvere, has written an analysis of the book, where he explains why it is incorrect. Only a minor part of his criticism is mentioned here. How is it "undue weight" to give more space to criticism that spans a whole report and in fact a whole book, than to some support in a review? It seems like we need to repeat this over and over and over. Neutrality is not about writing equal amounts of text! OK? --OpenFuture (talk) 13:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

And I'm not sure why you think that the Washington Post is "slanted to the right." The Washington Post is a liberal newspaper. Perhaps you were thinking of the Washington Times, which is DC's conservative paper. But the Post is pretty well known for its liberal political views. Its positive review of Klein's book is not startling.MKil (talk) 11:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)MKil

You're right, I made a mistake on that. However Washington Post#Political stance suggests that the paper does actually lean to the right since at least 1992, and in either case I still don't see the praise section acurately reflecting the reception this book appears to have gotten. NJGW (talk) 13:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, I find your desire to excise this section somewhat surprising, given your reversion of my edit which removed a poorly-written unsourced sentence that was pro-Klein. "Please don't remove information," you said, and said that I should follow WP:Preserve. Does this policy only pertain to pro-Klein material on this page?MKil (talk) 11:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)MKil

The only part I have said needs to be excised outright is the quote in passing by a person that never read the book and has at least two clear COI's. That type of source clearly violates wp:NPOV, and as I point out above the information given by this quote is non-existant. Otherwise, either the praise section needs to be longer, or the crit section needs to be shorter. Either solution would fulfill the requirements of wp:UNDUE. NJGW (talk) 13:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with NJWG, but then I am a Klein fan. Maybe its POV about there being too much Norberg, some folk seem to regard him very highly. Whats not POV is that there is far more positive comment for this book from the established reviewers that negative. Therefore wikki neutrality surely means the praise section should be at least as long as the criticism? I don't want to have authored more than my share for such an important article, but if no one else adds any more praise Im going to enlarge that section soon. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality s not about giving equal lengths, as I have mentioned before. Nobody claims the article on child porn isn't neutral because it doesn't include equal length of supporting descriptions. Naomi Kleins book is incorrect in almost every significant detail. The positive reviews are only talking about what an important book it is. The negative reviews explain why it is wrong. To mirror this in a neutral way, the criticism section automatically becomes longer. Otherwise it only becomes a list fo who thought it was good and who thought it was bad, which is pointless. This article must, for the sake of neutrality, present Naomi Klein's claims, and also explain why they are incorrect. Anything else would be POV. If you want balance, we could make sure that there are as many positive reviews as their are negative. That, I agree, is a reasonable view of balance. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Aslund might have contentious views, but he is definitely an expert on the Russian economy, like Jeffrey Sachs. His opinion should be included, and not be willy-nillying removed. Troopedagain (talk) 22:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but what is his opinion is on the book he hasn't read? NJGW (talk) 04:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I would guess that quote was an attempt to make the early versions of the article less POV, when there was almost only praise. I think it should go away now, the article is NPOV now. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

If Stiglitz thinks Friedman favours corporatism then he is being dishonest. Being a left wing economist with the chance to reform the US economy and introduce his own "Shock Doctrine" then I'm sure he will do whatever he can to portray Friedman in a bad light. Which is a shame as Friedman didn't do that to Keynes in the 70s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabaton10 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Naomi Klein answers her critics

At her website, Naomi Klein has this to answer the criticism against The Shock Doctrine, written 2nd Sept 2008. I think this should be mentioned in this article. This links to her text: http://www.naomiklein.org/articles/2008/09/response-attacks. If no-one wants to do this I will do so myself in a few days, although as that would be my first edit at WP I'd prefer someone more experienced did it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.230.37.219 (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Above edit was by me, have an account now Barbafant (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Be bold, but don't be embarassed if someone says you did something wrong... just roll with it and learn from any mistakes that might be made. NJGW (talk) 17:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It used to be mentioned, a long with the rebuttal of the rebuttal from Johan Norberg. I don't know who removed it or why, but I have to admit that it doesn't exactly add much to this article, nor the debate, as Klein simply avoids most of the criticism, and implicitly acknowledges some of it. Not much of a rebuttal. :) But of course, I wouldn't oppose that it gets added back. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, then I suppose I would like to have both back. Can't do it myself until next week though. Barbafant (talk) 12:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Klein absolutely failed in that so called "rebuttal" and Norberg immediately posted another rebuttal against her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabaton10 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Norberg and Friedman

This edit summary is rather odd. We're not reading Norbert, we're reading Wikipedia. Please quote the passage you're referring to so we can make the article as accurate as possible. NJGW (talk) 02:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

My edit was odd, huh? Since the section was discussing Norberg's dissection of Klein's book, and since Norberg illustrated that Klein misrepresented Friedman's views on the Iraq war, it seemed like POV-pushing to include a fact tag in that section, which was sourced quite well. If there is a new Wikipedia policy that frowns on using quotes contained in secondary sources, let me know.

As Norberg puts it: Friedman himself said: "I was opposed to going into Iraq from the beginning. I think it was a mistake, for the simple reason that I do not believe the United States of America ought to be involved inaggression." And this was not just one war that he happened to oppose. In 1995, he described his foreign policy position as "anti-interventionist." Speaking of the Gulf War, he said it was "more nearly justified than other foreign interventions," but concluded that the arguments for it were "fallacious." (taken from http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/html/bp102/bp102index.html, page 5)

And before you say that this quote was after the fact. Yes, he said it after the war started. Since the only quote Klein can come up with to support any idea that Friedman was "ambivalent" about the war is taken out-of-context, I think a clear quote directly from the man proves the point.MKil (talk) 03:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)MKil

The stuff from Norberg is way too long. It's one person from a libertarian think-tank, he shouldn't be given almost half of the "Critical response" section. I can trim it, but it might make more sense if someone else picked out what they thought were the gems (and remove POV terms like "more thorough"). CRETOG8(t/c) 18:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the largest serious critical analysis of the book *should* get most of the space of the criticism section. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I've trimmed it down a good bit. Mostly I've just reduced the wordiness and the POV, almost all the substance is still there. I think the only two things I cut out were the mention of Norberg's book and Klein not having evidence of a conspiracy. CRETOG8(t/c) 13:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you removed quite a lot of the substance, in fact. I tried to put some of it back. I agree that we don't need to mention his book or the conspiracy part. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Klein hasn't read anything from Friedman and it shows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabaton10 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Klein showed friedman supported the war when in was going on

First off Klein responded th several of Norbergs charges in details by givings facts and data from the economies she mentioned in her book. Plus she showed that friedman supported the war when it was going on. Norberg claims the interview was taken out of context. How is this taken out of context:

FOCUS: You describe the concentration of power as the greatest threat to freedom – and thus to the economy as well. Many people judge the current war against Iraq very critically for this reason – you as well?

Friedman: A clear no. US President Bush only wanted war because anything else would have threatened the freedom and the prosperity of the USA. Counter-question: Do you recommend that Gerhard Schröder ask the whole world for advice before he engages in foreign policy?

FOCUS: The USA did at least ignore the opinion of the majority of UN members…

Friedman:…Bush is president of the United States and not the world. He didn’t even have to consult the UN at all. The United Nations is an absurd organization anyways. All votes count the same, regardless of whether the country has three or 300 million residents. Furthermore, many nations aren’t democratically legitimized at all.

FOCUS: Many Europeans see that differently. Does this political disagreement threaten a trade war between Europe and America?

Friedman: No, the end justifies the means. As soon as we’re rid of Saddam, the political differences will also disappear again very quickly.

So the claim that he opposed the war from the beginning is a flat out lie. He may have opposed it after they failed to find the WMD's, but he surely didn't oppose from the start.

An why should Klein bother herself with a nobody like Norberg. An obscure academic at the CATO institute who virtually no one knows outside of extreme libertarian circles. His entire page on wikipedia is puff piece based solely on articles from his own website. This is a case of certian people on wikipedia making Norberg more famous than he actually is.

In any event Klein responsed in detail to his criticisms and that response should be included in the article. annoynmous 18:57, 22 October (UTC)

Your response is very strange.

1. Nowhere in that quote does Friedman utter a syllable of support for the war.

2. That you resort to name calling against Norberg shows that you, like Klein, has no arguments.

3. In what way is it relevant if he is famous or not? Isn't it what he SAYS that is important?

4. She did not respond in detail to his criticism, which is much wider and more detailed than her response pretends.

I continue to claim that the addition of her response is ridiculous. Wikipedia is not a place where we do summaries of peoples discussions. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

OpenFuture, with this post it seems apparent that you are carrying water for a specific, non-neutral, point-of-view. You know this is not the business of an encyclopedia. When asked "[do you] judge the current war against Iraq very critically," Friedman answers, "A clear no."Bustter (talk) 10:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It does not seem apparent at all. My point of view is neutral and fact-based, and so is the response above. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Norberg claimed that Friedman had always been against the war. The quote above shows that to be clearily false. You say that Friedman never utters a syllable in support of the war.

So saying "US President Bush only wanted war because anything else would have threatened the freedom and the prosperity of the USA". That sure sounds like support to me.

Once again Klein responsed in detail to Norbergs criticisms. Just because you chose not to notice them doesn't mean they didn't exist. Klein showed that Norbergs simplistic notion that her book was completely about Friedman was false. Klein was simply saying that her argument was larger than just one man and that regardless of whether or not Friedman supported the war that the free market ideology he advocated influenced what the Coalition of provisional authority did in Iraq.

I brought up the fact that Norberg lacks nobility due to the fact that on wikipedia he's treated like he's some sorta world renowned expert or something when he isn't. Even in the article on Friedman where Kleins criticism is mentioned you have norbergs criticism of klein held up as if he's an expert when he isn't.

I accept that Klein is mainly a journalist and writer and not a trained economist, but neither is Norberg. His degree is in history and the only significant academic post has been at the CATO institute where as Klein was once a fellow at the London School of Economics. People all around the world know who Naomi Klein is where is hardly anyone knows who Johan Norberg is. I'm not saying that as hyperbole, it's simply a matter of fact.

Joseph Stigilitz, a Nobel Laureate and according to surveys the most cited economist in the world today, seems to think Kleins book is worth reading. I put more stock in his opinion than in Johan Norbergs.

Anyway I'm fine with the Iraq War stuff being out of the article as I'm not interested edit warring over this article any longer. I just wanted to point out that Friedmans claim that he opposed it from the beginning was flat out false. annoynmous 17:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"The quote above shows that to be clearily false." No it does not. Nowhere in the quote above does Friedman actually say that he supports the war. What he says is that he doesn't criticize the war mainly because it creates a greater concentration of power. Friedman realized that the war, it's reasons and effects are complex. Those who try to claim that Friedman supported the war, which they only do so that they can claim that the war is a part of some sort of conspiracy to create shocks to create a more free world, consistently fail to realize and acknowledge this complexity, and takes any effort to nuance a position as support for the war. That continues to be baseless and absurd. The citation does *not* prove that Friedman supported the war. And that's the end of that.

How well known Johan Norberg is continues to be irrelevant, and you continuing to bring it up continues to show that you have no factual arguments and has to resort to discussing the persons involved in the argument.

My position continue to be that Wikipedia is not a place to summarize others discussions blow-by-blow. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It may be the end of it for you, but saying doesn't make it so. I repeat, Friedmans claim that he was always against the war is just plain false. Here is the quote again:

Friedman: A clear no. US President Bush only wanted war because anything else would have threatened the freedom and the prosperity of the USA. Counter-question: Do you recommend that Gerhard Schröder ask the whole world for advice before he engages in foreign policy?

Maybe I'm perplexed by the plain meaning of words, but seems to me like he's saying that Bush had to invade Iraq because it was an emergency. What is the alternative that would have threatened freedom and prosperity? Are you really saying that contunuing sanctions or trying to find a diplomatic solution would have threatened freedom in the USA?

There's also this comment:

Friedman:…Bush is president of the United States and not the world. He didn’t even have to consult the UN at all. The United Nations is an absurd organization anyways. All votes count the same, regardless of whether the country has three or 300 million residents. Furthermore, many nations aren’t democratically legitimized at all.

So the U.N. an internationally recognized organization whose charter the U.S. is a signatory is a play thing for the President to disregard whenever it feals like it. Oh yes this is truly the voice of non-interventionism.

No matter what convoluted logic you employ the idea that Friedman was always against the war is simply an untenable position. annoynmous 14:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

1. No matter how many times you repeat that quote, it does not contain support for the war. Once again, Friedman is discussing a complex and multi-faceted topic, and you try to make it into a simple black and white question by taking quotes out of context and then misinterpreting them. That quote explains what Friedman thinks are George Bushes reasoning behind the war. That does not mean this is Friedmans reasoning, although it may be.

2. If Friedman was for or against the war is really quote irrelevant. Even if he was for the war, he was not for it for the reasons Klein claims, namely to push through neoliberal reforms. You get hung up on this topic, because you desperately want Klein to be right, and that must mean you want Norberg to be wrong, and this is the only think you can find. This is a quote where you, by taking it out of context and overinterpreting it, can draw the conclusion that Norberg was not *stricly* correct in everything he said. But that's still irrelevant to the discussion. That you find one place where Norberg maybe was only half-right, does not change anything in his criticism of the book.

3. If the UN is "absurd" or not is a matter for debate, it it's quite clear that it's an inefficient organization to a large part run by dictatorships. Both Russian and China has vetoes in the security council for example. You seem to draw a very weird conclusion from this quote, namely that it means Friedman is an interventionism. That conclusion is just strange. The UN is maybe not absurd, but clearly an organisation which has no democratic legitimacy.

Now can we move on with this debate beyon you repeating that Friedman quote? It doesn't prove what you want to prove.

--OpenFuture (talk) 08:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I simply making a point that Friedmans claim that he was always against the war is false. Again maybe I'm confused by the plain meaning of words. Friedman says that Bush only wanted war to avoid disaster for the U.S. The meaning I derive from that is that Saddam Hussein was a threat to world peace even though no hard evidence had been provided. What is this mysterious complexity I'm missing? If he truly was against the war then he would have said so at the time. Also keep in mind that in the 2006 quote were Friedman claims he was always against the war he also said ""But, having said that, once we went in to Iraq, it seems to me very important that we make a success of it." Also shortly before he died he also said that the greatest threat to the world's economy is "Islamofascism, with terrorism as its weapon". It seems to me that unless your an extreme friedman apologist the only way to interpret these comments is that Friedman was for the war and only said he was against it 3 years later because by then it was politically embarrassing.

The reason I keep bringing this up is because of those who belittle Kleins response to Norberg. It's odd too me how people like openfuture claim that Klein is simplistic in her interpretation of Friedman's work and yet those same people seem intent on giving a simplistic reading of Kleins book. The whole point of her response was to to take exception to the idea that her book was about one man who was singularly responsible for everything from Pinochet to the Iraq War. Klein never claimed that the Iraq War was fought to push through neoliberal reforms. She simply says that the ideas of shock therapy influenced Paul Bremer and the coalition of provisional authority.

Anyway, I'm done with this issue. I'm satisified with the article as it is now and the only reason I got involved was because I found it wrong that Klein's response wasn't in the article because certain biased editors felt it wasn't satisfactory. I've already wasted enough time arguing about this and will respond no further.annoynmous 17:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are simply making this point, repeatedly, by referring to a quote that doesn't support your point. And your constant effort to make this into a debate of the issue is not going to work, as wikipedia isn't a discussion forum. We need to try to keep this about the article, not the issue.

And yeah, sure, the whole point of her response was to say that her book was about more than Friedman. But then again, nobody, least of all Norberg, have ever claimed her book is just about Friedman. And that pretty much says it all about the response. She doesn't answer the actual criticism, just a straw man. And that is not belittling, it's an undeniable objective fact. And if you can't see or accept that, then it is *you* who is biased.

And yes, Kleins response should not be in the article. Not because it isn't satisfactory, but because it is ridiculous to make a Wikipedia article into a blow-by-blow summary of a debate. Kleins response adds nothing to this article, and that is only partly because it adds nothing to the debate or the book and doesn't answer the criticism. If the criticism against Klein is incorrect, then is shouldn't be quoted in this article at all. If it is correct, then Kleins response is irrelevant. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Fine, Johan Norberg is a super genius and I was a fool to ever question his devine wisdom. Are you happy know? Can we drop it? Klein's response is in the article and as long as no one removes it I'm fine with this article as it stands.annoynmous 22:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

No, Norberg is not a super senius, and *his* level of intelligence is not relevant to this discussion. And no, we can't drop it. Your addition made for a worse article, and it also makes Naomi Klein look petty and stupid (although maybe that's only true for people who actually have read the criticism against her). I still think it should be removed. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

How does my addition make the article worse, I simply want it ackownledged that she responded to Norbergs criticisms. Just because you personally didn't like her response doesn't make it irrelvant to the article. Your assessment of whether or not her response was petty or not is yours and yours alone and not some sacred law of the universe. annoynmous 22:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

First of all, she didn't respond to Norbergs criticisms. She wrote an article where she claims the criticism is a straw man. That in itself is a straw man. But she doesn't actually respond to the criticism. Klein says this: "The Shock Doctrine has room for this kind of complexity because it is not – despite what Cato claims – a book about the actions of one man" [Friedman]. But The Cato paper claims nothing of the sort. He response is a huge straw man, claiming that everybody else are straw men.

Second of all, it makes it worse, because it now says Klein responded by calling Norbergs arguments a straw man and Norberg responded by saying she didn't answer the criticism. That doesn't add anything to the debate or to the article. "Klein responded Blah, Norberg again responded Bleh". Do you really think that adds anything to the article? Do you? Does the reader of the article become more enlightened?

If there was anything of relevance in her response, we could add that to the article, but there isn't. And that of course means Norbergs response doesn't add anything to it either. It becomes a girly slap fight. It's ridiculous, and has nothing to do in a Wikipedia article. And if we want to be factually correct, the text should be changed to "Klein responded that Norberg had erected a straw man by claiming that her book is about one man: Friedman, even though Norberg never claimed anything like that". That would be a useful and enlightening addition to the article. Somehow I doubt that you'd like that. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Once again just because it's your opinion doesn't make it true. I think the kleins response was very thoughtful and thorough. I think she was right about Norberg erecting a straw man. I think Klein showed that Norberg was wrong that Friedman was always against the Iraq War(keeping in mind that at this moment it isn't even mentioned in the article and I' m fine with that as I feel it to be a trivial point). You obviously disagree a feel that Kleins response was insufficient. Fine let's agree to disagree.

That doesn't mean that you have a special ownership over this article and get to determine what is or is not relevant. In my opinion the entire critcism by Norberg is irrelvant as in my opinion he is a non-entity and is given far more prominence than he deserves. However, you don't see me trying to delete his entire criticism from the article. The article as it stands is a good compromise and should stay as it is. annoynmous 23:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

"I tink she was right about Norberg erecting a straw man." - Then you haven't read Norbergs criticism.

"Fine let's agree to disagree." - That's only said by people who know they are wrong.

"In my opinion the entire critcism by Norberg is irrelvant as in my opinion he is a non-entity and is given far more prominence than he deserves." - The only irrelevant thing here are your personal opinion about Johan Norberg.

"However, you don't see me trying to delete his entire criticism from the article." - No, because you know that his criticism is relevant and that it would be re-added, and attempts from your side to remove it would result in an edit war you would lose. However, the additions you made to the article continues to be irrelevant, for the reasons given above, which you continue to ignore.

--OpenFuture (talk) 14:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Once again you precede from the false assumption that because it is your opinion that means it is absolute fact. I realize that to you Johan Norberg is god who can do no wrong, but you might at least like to entertain the idea that others may not view him as highly as you do.

You appear to not understand the purpose of discussion which is to reach a mutual compromise. As stands the version includes Kleins response as well as Norbergs second response. This seems a fine an adequate compromise to me. If you attempt to remove Kleins response I will revert it, plain and simple. If you really want to get into an edit war over this I'm game as it is obvious you will lose. It will force you too give an actual reason why her response shouldn't be in the article other than you personally don't like it.

I would rather we not get into an edit war as they are usually counterproductive. I feel the artice as stands is a good compromise.annoynmous 18:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

"Once again you precede from the false assumption that because it is your opinion that means it is absolute fact." - No, I do not, I understand the difference between fact and opinion.

"I realize that to you Johan Norberg is god who can do no wrong" - You are as always completely and utterly wrong in everything, from start to finish.

"You appear to not understand the purpose of discussion which is to reach a mutual compromise." - No, the purpose of discussion is to reach mutual *agreement*. A compromise starts out assuming both are equally correct. The article as it stands is not a compromise. Adding Norbergs response is not a compromise to adding Kleins respons, it's an absolute necessity to keep the article unbiased.

"If you really want to get into an edit war over this I'm game as it is obvious you will lose. It will force you too give an actual reason why her response shouldn't be in the article other than you personally don't like it." - Why don't you actually read my responses? I have given a reason many times. You continue to ignore it. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

No you haven't. The only reason you given is that you don't like Kleins response. I said I felt Kleins response is an adequate response to Norberg. Difference of opinion is not a reason to leave out a response to criticism.

I suggested that we should agree to disagree. Contrary to your assertion this was not me admitting that you were right, it was me trying to be civil and acknowledging that we have differing opinions on the value of both Norberg and Klein. My opinion of Norberg is mine and mine alone, I do not claim it as the supreme law of the universe. I would never be so arrogant as to claim that only the opinions of people I like are valid.

The article as it stands has Norbergs criticism with Kleins response and norbergs second response. I see nothing that substantially harms the quality of the article in any way.annoynmous 19:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

"The only reason you given is that you don't like Kleins response." - I never said that, I never claimed that as a reason. I have given a reason multiple times, and I have explained why I think the article is worse off with this addition. If you read Klein and Norberg as you read me it explains your ignorance on the topic. You clearly do not read what I actually wrote, you just see what you want to see, which also explains why you don't misunderstand Friedmans quote. Get a mug of coffee and vitamin pills and read this again:

" Wikipedia is not a place where we do summaries of peoples discussions." "My position continue to be that Wikipedia is not a place to summarize others discussions blow-by-blow." "[Your addition] makes it worse, because it now says Klein responded by calling Norbergs arguments a straw man and Norberg responded by saying she didn't answer the criticism. That doesn't add anything to the debate or to the article." "it also makes Naomi Klein look petty and stupid".

Did you read it this time? --OpenFuture (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I read what you said and responsed that this is your opinon, not fact. You feel kleins response wasn't adequate and that it doesn't add anything to the article. That's nice, but just because you believe this doesn't make it so. Klein responsed to both Norberg and Jonathan Chaits criticisms and her response should be part of this article.

Let's pretend that I agree with you that her response was bad. That still wouldn't be a good enough reason to remove her response.There's no law at wikipedia that I know of that say's that a response can only be posted so long as it's good. Klein directly responded to one of the critcisms posted in this article and that should be documented. This is not summarizing other peoples discussion blow-by-blow, it's simply ackowledging that there was a response. Whether you deem it relevant or not has no bearing on whether or not it should be included.

Why don't you put more faith in the reader and let them determine whether or not Kleins response was adequate or not.annoynmous 19:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay I made some edits to the article in an attempt to reach a mutual compromise. I got rid of any mention of friedman and kept kleins general claim that both Norberg and Chait made straw man arguments about her work. I emphasize the word "claim" as the article as it stands clearily states this as Kleins opinion of Norberg and Chaits criticism of her. The word "claim" is also used for Norbergs criticisms as well. That seems like a fair and adequate compromise to me.

I see no reason from now on why Kleins response should not be in the article. By not including it the impression is given that Klein never responded to criticism of the book when she did. Whether or not one deems her response inadequate or not is irrelvant, she did respond and the article should document that.annoynmous 00:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

"I read what you said and responsed that this is your opinon, not fact." - I've never claimed these things are facts.

"I got rid of any mention of friedman and kept kleins general claim that both Norberg and Chait made straw man arguments about her work." - Friedman is not the issue. In fact, you changed it to say that that Klein claims that the responses are overly personal. She claims no such thing. Again this shows that you don't read things properly, you just read what you want it to say.

"By not including it the impression is given that Klein never responded to criticism of the book when she did" - And the point is that such bickering has no place in wikipedia. No including the response does *not* give the impression that Klein never responded. The article is not a place of debate, it's about the *book* not the *issues*. You clearly do not understand this. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The job of an article on wikipedia is to try and make the article fair and neutral. Klein responded to one of the central criticisms of her book and that should be in the article. This is not "bickering" it is simply a statement of fact that klein responded.

Who say's an article is not a place of debate? If there was a debate online between Klein and Norberg about the merits of the book that strikes me as very relevant to the article. You act as if there multiple exchanges between Klein and Norberg when in fact there was only one. Klein responded to both Chait and Norbergs criticisms and Norberg responded to her response and that was the end of it. There was no "constant back and forth" as you called it. I'm sure this little old article can handle that without too much fuss. Again you should have more faith in the reader and let them decide.

You have made some changes to Norbergs response. I'm fine with those as long as you don't remove her response altogether. I hope this means that this matter is settled as I'm tired of arguing this issue. annoynmous 11:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I have made some edits to the article that more clearily show that kleins claim that the critcism of her book inflated the role she attributes to Friedman was directed specifically to Norberg.

By the way in regards to the Phrase "overly personal", I got it from kleins article. While it's true she doesn't use those words it is an obvious paraphase of what she said:

There are many more straw men propped up in The Cato Institute paper. Most involve vastly inflating the role I attribute to Milton Friedman. And no little wonder. Other than the University of Chicago economics department, Cato is the institution most intimately aligned and associated with Milton Friedman’s radical theories. Among other tributes, every two years, Cato hands out the Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty, worth half a million dollars. (This year it went to a 23-year-old Venezuelan student activist to further his opposition to the government of Hugo Chavez). Since Friedman continues to serve as Cato’s patron saint, it has much to lose from a diminishing of Friedman’s reputation, as well as a direct interest in exonerating him of all crimes, real or imagined.

It's seems to me that she's saying that Norbergs critcism of her is personal because he works for the CATO institute. However I think wikipedia should be precise in it's wording, so I agree the phrase "overly personal" is innapropriate. In the interest of fairness I have removed the phrase from her article.

I would like to say that I don't appreciate the insulting tone of comments like "You are as always completely and utterly wrong in everything, from start to finish" or when I said we should agree to disagree you said "That's only said by people who know they are wrong". I feel I have made good will efforts to reach a mutual compromise and I don't appreciate this arrogant it's either my way or no way attitude.

Now I realize that I may have made some insulting comments as well with "you think Norberg is god" comments. If I offended you with those comments than I sincerely apologize. I would like to propose that we start over fresh and assume good faith in regards to each others intentions. I feel that with the recent edits we've made that our arguments with this article are over. I hope that if we ever meet again that despite our differences we can learn to be civil towards one another.annoynmous 13:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

"Who say's an article is not a place of debate?" - Wikipedia:NOTFORUM

"If there was a debate online between Klein and Norberg about the merits of the book that strikes me as very relevant to the article." - If that debate added something to the topic, yes. In that case what it added should be added to the article. But it doesn't, which I already mentioned, but which you of course didn't read.

"While it's true she doesn't use those words it is an obvious paraphase of what she said:" - That is NOT a paraphrase of what she said. And you can't paraphrase things left and right, quote instead.

"It's seems to me that she's saying that Norbergs critcism of her is personal because he works for the CATO institute." - No, she doesn't say that. She doesn't even say it's personal. Again you read something into a piece of text that is simply not there. That quote is an attempt by Klein to make "guilt by association" between Friedman and The Cato Institute. That's all. There is nothing about "personal" in there, it's just your imagination, just as with everything else you "interpret".

"I feel I have made good will efforts to reach a mutual compromise" - You have done no such thing. You getting your way is, surprise surprise, not a compromise. That said I can't see any possible compromise either. Maybe there is one, but I don't know what that would be. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The guideline you quoted is in regards to the behavior of editors on the talk page, namely not using it as a chat room. There's nothing in it that says a response to criticism can't be included.

"But it doesn't, which I already mentioned, but which you of course didn't read" I have read it and have repeatedly stated that this is your opinion, not fact. I believe it does add something to the article. You are not the owner of this article and therefore not the sole arbiter of what is or is not relevant to this article.

What I meant by saying that it was a paraphrase is that Klein claimed that the CATO institute had a special interest in defending Friedman. Therefore for them the criticism of Friedman in Kleins book was for them a personal matter. It was another editor who came up with phrase and it seemed to me to be an accurate summary of what she said even though I acknowledge she didn't use those exact words.

I feel I have made several attempts to reach a good faith compromise. I agreed to taking out the Iraq War issue and I didn't object when you made changes to the sentence that links to Norbergs second response. You on the other have given up nothing and maintained that it's either your way or no way.

It occurs to me that at this point that we are arguing just to argue. Frankly I should have stopped responding a while ago like I said I was going to, but my baser instincts got the better of me. As long as you don't remove Kleins response I have no further quarrel with this article. I am done with this matter.annoynmous 01:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"That "it's opinion not fact" mantra you have is getting pretty silly. Either you use it when it *is* fact, or you use it about an opinion I never claimed was a fact. It doesn't help you nor get you out of anything. I understand the difference between facts and opinions. OK?

"What I meant by saying that it was a paraphrase is that Klein claimed that the CATO institute had a special interest in defending Friedman." - Which is of course something completely different from saying that their reponse was overly personal, which means that it is an attack on her.

"You are not the owner of this article and therefore not the sole arbiter of what is or is not relevant to this article." - This is added to your general straw man comments like that about Norberg being god. Stop that kind of responses and start answering what I actually write. OK? --OpenFuture (talk) 10:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

She didn't mention that French article in the book. It was after the fact so don't pretend otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabaton10 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Globalize tag

The criticism does not deal only with English speaking territories, in fact much of the criticism (as well as the book) deals with Friedmans attitude and influence in Chile criticism of dictatorships and his opinions on the Iraq war. I removed the tag. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Judging reviews

Judging reviews is a nuisance. Sometimes it's clearly very positive or very negative, but often it's not.

Anyway, I agree with the recent edit that Robert Cole's review is just plain negative. I disagree that Tom Redburn's review is just negative. It's far from great praise, but with lines in there like, "Ms. Klein exposes the hypocrisy behind those who promote free enterprise but accept autocratic regimes to carry it out, which makes her book a useful corrective to some of the uncritical celebrations of the spread of globalization since the collapse of the Soviet empire." it has to be considered partly positive.

I'd call it mixed, myself. Another approach is to not judge it but give positive and negative quotes from the review to give the idea. CRETOG8(t/c) 18:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning one positive thing of a book and then completely slaughtering it can't be construed as mixed. But that said, not judging them is probably a good idea. Or, we skip the Reviews section, and split it into "Praise" and move the negative quotes to "criticism". --OpenFuture (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the problem. That review can be construed as mixed. I just did! It's an honest disagreement, and there will always be disagreements like that about some reviews. Not sure the best way to chop things up in an article this controversial. I think there's enough reviews already that that one could just be cut out without much loss, except that it's NYT so it's pretty prestigious. CRETOG8(t/c) 19:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

A mixed review needs to have something resembling a balance between criticism and praise. That review does not have any such balance. Of course it can be construed to be mixed. It can be construed to be positive to. That does not make it so. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It gets harder if you think there's only one possible evaluation of that review. I disagree with you, and obviously someone else did as well. Anyway, I understand wanting to split into praise and criticism, but I'm not sure it splits so cleanly. For instance, right up top for "praise" is Stigltz's review, which is also very mixed. CRETOG8(t/c) 20:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

(Now retiring from this conversation to avoid wikistress.) CRETOG8(t/c) 20:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

That's why the split into praise and criticism makes sense, because this way we don't have to judge each review as being positive or negative, we just mention the praise and the criticism. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"this way we don't have to judge each review as being positive or negative, we just mention the praise and the criticism" Brilliant idea! We should do this everywhere! We could pull a critical sentence out of a 9 out of 10 review and make the review appear negative! It's fair and it's balanced! Sloopydrew (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Response to response to response?

Recently Naomi Kleins response to Norbergs criticism was added to the article, and then Norbergs response to Kleins response. Does that make sense? It seems silly to me, especially since Klein completely fails to answer Norbergs criticism. Her claim that Norberg makes The Shock Doctrine out to be about only Friedman is, excuse the French, bullshit. Fine, we can have the response to the response to the response there, since Klein apparently realized that more responses didn't help her. Should we detail this discussion more? Point out that she has refused to meet Norberg in debate? I think this makes it seem stupid and petty. And it's definitely not helping Klein. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I think OpenFuture should recuse himself from further editing of this article, as this discussion overwhelmingly shows he/she is coming from it from one side and one side only and isn't even remotely trying to be fair. Norberg shouldn't even be in the criticism section or on the page for this book at all. If he is, Naomi Klein's criticism of his criticism of her book should be on Cato's page. Norberg's criticism came a year late, is from a well-known Conservative/Libertarian think tank and took up over half the "criticism" section. OpenFuture argues that, as his critical article is the longest, it should get the most space. Then I challenge OpenFuture to go through the "praise" section and adequately redo each quote in proportion to the review/article it came from. Saying that the person with the longest review/commentary should get the longest section in Wikipedia (praise or criticism) is laughable. Sloopydrew (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Your personal attacks is against Wikipedia policy, and so is removing relevant and well sourced parts just because you don't like them [2] and again [3] are against Wikipedia policy. Please follow Wikipedia policy, which includes showing respect to others and having a neutral point of view in the articles. Thanks! --OpenFuture (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, Klein is the definition of a dunce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabaton10 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Protection

{{editprotected}}

1. As this article now has a protection, should there not be a protection template?

2. Also please restore the content in this removal: [4]. This content was removed by a biased user without discussion and against consensus, because he thinks it is "ridiculous". It references is a detailed and serious criticism by a well know and respected (if controversial) think-tank. Although I agree that including Kleins response and Norbergs response to the response is unnecessary, that debate was done above (See Response to response to response above) and my point of view got no support, and if I remember correctly at least two other authors supported it's inclusion (but I won't search through the edit history to fund that now). Consensus therefore must be assumed to be that it should be included.

--OpenFuture (talk) 09:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Placed a template now.

2. Since you are involved in the edit war that is currently at hand, and since the section you refer to is actually the one disputed, i am going to cite m:The Wrong Version here. In an edit war, the version that happens to be on top at the time of the protection is the one that gets protected, without any prejudice as to the quality or "Correctness" of this version. The only exceptions to this are cases where severe rule-related issues are present, such as copyright violations and BLP concerns. In this case, its merely a dispute, so the top version will be protected for the next 3 days.

In the meantime, find a consensus or agreement on the talk page, or call in other editors to reach such consensus. Remember that it is entirely possible to reach consensus regardless of the top most protected version, and that this version will only stay the top revision as long as the debate is going / until consensus is found. There is really little use adding something back under protection if it is still discussed. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 10:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

There hasn't been any debate, and Sloopydrews discussion before we even interacted was that I shouldn't be allowed to edit the page, since I don't agree with his political standpoint. Calling in other editors will no doubt cause accusations of canvassing. I guess a third opinion is the best way forward here, or? --OpenFuture (talk) 14:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

Wikipedias policy on WP:NPOV requires us to have a neutral point of view in the articles. Therefore we can't remove relevant criticism just because we don't like it. The persistent and repeated removals of criticism [5], [6], [7] and [8] is a blantant violation of NPOV. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I feel OpenFuture should recuse himself/herself from further editing of the Shock Doctrine page. He/She has, as can be seen in this discussion page, managed to change positive and negative reviews to "praise/criticism" -- allowing for a critically acclaimed book to look like it received mixed/negative reviews. He/she has managed to take away the description of the book's content, making it harder for readers to find out for themselves what the book is about and why the topics are important. He/she has been and continues to monitor this page to ensure it has a POV that isn't consistent with that of reality, but rather that of the Cato Institute and other Conservative think tanks. As he/she has acknowledged, NPOV is required in editing. I have left the diary intact (including some ridiculous criticism that's thrown in from random Conservative economists), with the exception of the goofy, extended, out of place comments from the Cato institute and Naomi Klein's response to said comments and the response to Naomi Klein's response. This doesn't belong here any more than a summary of the Shock Doctrine and Naomi Klein's responses to the Cato Institute belong on the Wikipedia Cato page. Sloopydrew (talk) 08:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

That you think Norbergs criticism is ridiculous is unfortunately not of any relevance here. Also stop trying to pin every change you don't like on me. I am in no way the sole or even main author of this article. There is no reason for me to stop editing this article, and I would like to ask you to stop your aggressive behavior and personal remarks. Comment on the article, not on the editors. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

To be able to resolve this properly and without further admin intervention, the issue needs to be discussed. To do that, the objections against the inclusion of the source in question must be stated (and not just called "ridiculous"). So I again invite Sloopydrew to try to work constructively on the issue and work towards building consensus. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hi; I'm here in response to your request for a third opinion.
Personally, I think that Norberg's criticism should be in the article; it adds a new perspective and new details, and he certainly has standing (it's not just an Amazon review by a random person on the internet). Including this criticism would help bring the article towards NPOV. bobrayner (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that! --OpenFuture (talk) 04:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Similarities between Klein's central theme and David Icke's disaster manipulation conspiracy theory.

On browsing around Wiki, I came accross this paragraph (below) from the entry for David Icke. It struck me that his theories about disasters and the like are being created and/or taken advantage of by people in power, are similar to Klein's ideas about politicians etc taking advantage after Katrina/911, pushing through the Patriot Act or somesuch. Granted, Klein's version doesnt include space reptiles or other more exotic explanations, but it's interesting there is a thread of similarity here. Would it be too far a stretch to say David Icke's books beat Klein's book to the punch?

British journalist Simon Jones writes that, according to Icke, "Ordinary people are being massively duped into believing that the ordinary course of world events are the consequence of known political forces and random, uncontrollable events.

However, the course of humanity is being manipulated at every level. These individuals arrange for incidents to occur around the world, which then elicit a response from the public ('something must be done'), and in turn allows those in power to do whatever they had planned to do in the first place."[22] Icke refers to this as problem-reaction-solution,[24] a variation of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's "Hegelian Dialectic".*** nolvadex 204.191.239.189 (talk) 06:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This seems like original research, but worth thinking about nonetheless! Shane (talk) 18:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to be dismissive, but while David Icke believes disasters are being deliberately caused and their effects manipulated, he considers the culprits to be shape-shifting reptoids from the planet Draco in the fourth dimension. Take a glance at his Wikipedia page and I think you'll see that any resemblance to Naomi Klein's view of the workings of the world is vanishingly slight. Warraqeen (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Purpose of Wikipedia, and thus of this article

I claim no right of interpretation, nor references to support my view. However for me, I think we overreach in our attempts here. We seek to provide NPOV on a subject where it is impossible. Use of words, concepts, are all subjective, and in fact so for each individual in his interpretation. The goal I would hope for would to present a brief presentation based on the author's expressed intentions, references to contravening sources or to such Wikipedia article which would fulfill this goal. And comments as to the books anticipated importance in world society. Lastly a useful guide to further study with selection of references for only the lay public (the experts don't come here except to bathe in any eventual limelight).

As it is now, we seek balance in reviews, purity of intent, or clarity of expression, etc, etc.

But in a reality check, let's look at what capitalist powers feel is important, Friedman is a useful smokescreen, but for them it is the goal that counts, no matter what they claim as they paint their activities in different colors. Anything goes.

If Klein or anyone can contribute clearing our minds of illusions, then that is fine from MY POV, but that's not NPOV, and not relevant here.

Would this more modest goal eliminate internal conflict and make a more useful article, I leave to you to judge. It is a shame to see all these useful minds straining because of a misconceived goal. Idealist707 (talk) 19:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Foreign Policy resource

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/11/28/the_global_thinkers_20_most_recommended_books?page=0,11

99.19.42.30 (talk) 07:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Excerpt ...

Naomi Klein posits that, over the past 50 years, free market fundamentalists have capitalized on the world's worst disasters -- from the ruthlessness of Chile's Augusto Pinochet to the 9/11 attacks, the Iraq war, and Hurricane Katrina.

99.181.131.59 (talk) 06:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely no possible relevance to this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

As the book includes and involves Frederick Hayek, a basic figure in the Austrian School of economics, I think discretionary sanctions apply. In particular, editor behavior is of concern. This is a warning that personal comments (e.g., not related to article improvement) will be reported for arbcom enforcement. – S. Rich (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Per previous discussion at WP:AE, discretionary sanctions only apply if the disputes specifically has to do with Hayek. Or actually not even that. If the dispute specifically has to do with Austrian School of economics (whether Hayek was really an "Austrian" is somewhat debatable). Still, if ArbCom ever gets around to finishing up the case on American Politics, and institutes discretionary sanctions as part of that case, then it will apply. Until then... Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I do not think the DS is so restricted. One, the Arbcom said: "Locus of dispute – The dispute centers around editing in the broad topic area of the Austrian school of economics, ..." Two, the Principles announced were very broad. From what I've seen (above and elsewhere) these principles are being violated. It is a small matter to bring this article explicitly within the AE umbrella as Hayek is written about a dozen times. How "Austrian" he was is not the issue. The problem has been disruptive editing (and related commentary) in this article and I intend to put a stop to it. The DS is the sledgehammer I will employ if need be. – S. Rich (talk) 00:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah and the locus of this dispute isn't Austrian economics. Look, I'm sympathetic to the goal of ending disruption on this article. But policy-creep is also a concern, and if DS doesn't apply then it's counter productive to try and WP:WIKILAWYER it to try and pretend that it applies. If DS is enacted in the American Politics case then that's a different matter.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Recent changes -- BRD

Considering the recent changes here, it is time to discuss. Bob, you removed the material, so please explain why. Ubikwit, you restored, so please explain why. – S. Rich (talk) 00:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for wandering into this minefield, S. Rich!

I had removed this because, quite frankly, this is supposed to be an encyclopædia article, not a manifesto. Giving campaigners free rein to present their ideas at length, in their own context, poses serious WP:NPOV problems. We have problems like this on a lot of articles about media & commentators discussing geopolitics, pop-economics, &c - there's an earlier example here. Ubikwit has never edited this article before, and just reverted me after this dispute. bobrayner (talk) 00:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Trying to give a synopsis of a book is not what articles about books generally cover. Shorter is better in such cases. There is no universal set length for a synopsis, though it should not be excessively long. While longer descriptions may appear to provide more data to the reader, a more concise summary may in fact be more informative as it highlights the most important elements. Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article. The current synopsis would be well-served by a substantial reduction in length per that project standards.

Secondly, use of "criticism" sections is deprecated on Wikipedia. The reviews should be given in some semblance of notability of the reviewer, and stick to short declarative sentences. We need not have thousands of words on who likes what, the task is to show readers that different opinions exist. Nor do comments like "best book in the world" or "worst book in the world" convey any real information - we need things like "the author says ABC, although most others say DEF" and the like showing readers precisely where the conflicts lay, not just that "some love it and some hate it" which is of no value. Collect (talk) 12:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The level of detail you have been deleting is necessary to make the development of the conceptual framework intelligible.

There is a simple contradiction in the fact that some editors want to place "jargon" tags while others are trying to eliminate the context that makes the adoption of the terminology as well as its meaning accessible to the reader.

@Bobrayner: The next time you make another insinuating remark about me we're going back to An/I. As for your screed above about "manifestos" and "campaigners", see WP:COMPETENCEISREQUIRED. I don't know what any of your backgrounds are, but I can assure you that I have the required competence on articles related to my field of study, and if it seems that you don't, I will point it out.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 13:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be very angry about being called a stalker. I'm sorry about that. If you don't like somebody saying that you follow them round and revert them on articles that you'd never edited before, the best solution is for you to stop following adversaries around and reverting them on articles that you'd never edited before. The same principle applies for various other conduct problems. Stop doing it, rather than expecting that the problem will go away if you could somehow just stop other editors mentioning what you're doing. bobrayner (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The "level of detail" in what is supposed to be a summary of the book is excessive at this point. I would point out further that Ubikwit is at 3RRR on an article which likely falls under discretionary sanctions, tand that he would be quite well-advised to self-revert. Collect (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Ubikwit is at 3RR on an article which quite likely falls under discretionary sanctions and would be quite well-advised to self-revert. Synopses are summaries and the level of detail is excessive. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention that his edit warring appears to be motivated by revenge against bobrayner. Also the edits are highly POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The material I've restored is not material that was originally added by me, for starters. Secondly, the level of detail is commensurate with the level of the conceptual sophistication of the book, which appears to be lost on many editors here.

@Bobrayner: The evidentiary requirements to prove stalking are substantially more stringent than the empty assertions you have made made, in the first place. Secondly, article Talk pages are not the place to make repeated unfounded accusations about user conduct, and it is a form of harassment to accuse another editor of harassment without proof.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 00:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I strongly object to the new version of the Synopsis by Collect. It's too problematic for it to be worth spelling out all the issues with it , but here are the three main reasons. 1) The original Synopsis was not IMO over long, it was a good concise summary of the book. 2) By removing the section sub headings, it makes it much more difficult to verify that the synopsis is an accurate reflection of the source. The subheadings are implicitly similar to chapter references. 3) The most glaring gross factual error was perhaps this: "Klein praises the World Bank and IMF." That is blatantly false, the book heavily criticizes those two institutions. Granted, in later work Klein may have became more complimentary, but that was after IMF and World Bank began retreating from neoliberalism, something that wasn't apparent to Klein when she finished the book in 2007.

I object to Bob's version too, the original Synopsis was NPOV and a well weighted reflection of the book (Disclsure: I wrote it). With Bob's changes, the Synopsis was too watered down to be an accurate summary of the book's argument. Other than that, Bob's change was much less problematic. (Other than the edit summary directed towards the excellent editor Ubikwit) FeydHuxtable (talk) 05:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

While Collect's version maybe wasn't perfect, it was a substantial improvement on what was there before. Before, you had claims made by Klein stated in Wikipedia voice, as if they were facts. For example: "The introduction sketches the history of the last 30 years, during which time economic shock doctrine has been applied throughout the world, from South America in the 1970s to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.". And then basically every subsequent paragraph has this problem. WP:NPOV trumps any stylistic concerns. Restoring the neutral version.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The main objection to Collect's version is not stylistic. It's that it was (in parts) blatantly false. IMO none of the Synopsis statements in Wikipedia voice are especially controversial. Its a neutral fact that radical economic changes are often implemented at times of crisis. (Whats more controversial would be whether the changes are good or bad). But I see your point, and if you wanted to add qualifiers like "in Kleins opinion", no objection from me. FeydHuxtable (talk) 05:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but you can't just say that in your own personal opinion, as a Wikipedia expert on the internets, the statements from Klein's book made in Wikipedia voice and presented as facts are not controversial. Neither can you claim that something is a "neutral fact" (as opposed to a "biased fact"?). I mean, you can, but it doesn't matter. Simply put, we just DON'T use Wikipedia voice to present opinions made in a book as if they were facts. That's just NPOV 101. And adding "in Kleins opinion" can solve some of the problems (like I did for the lede) but it can't help when the whole damn thing is written as if everything Klein says is the gospel truth. Collect's version was far more neutral. Far, far, far, more neutral.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course we ought not present facts as opinions. And likewise we ought not commit the opposite error of presenting facts as opinions. Sometimes there can be valid editorial dispute over whether a statement is an opinion or a fact. In such cases, citing reliable sources that supports a particular statement being non factual can be decisive. Much better than pitting editors opinions against each other!

The Synopsis is not written as though Klein's work is gospel truth. Even before the good compromise edit made a few minutes ago by Ubikwit, it already includes qualifiers for her more debatable assertions: I.E "She suggests" / "Klein describes" / "According to Klein".

All that said, I've no particular attachment to the existing synopses. If consensus forms to rewrite it totally, then fair enough. Just please don't violate WP:V by trying to force in blatant counter factuals like "Klein praises the World Bank and IMF". FeydHuxtable (talk) 06:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand why you object to that particular statement about WB and IMF and I support removing it (btw, that's not a "counter-factual", it's just plain ol' "misrepresentation", sorry for being pedantic). However, that still leaves the massive problems with the other version.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and at least we agree on basic principles. I respect and share your passion about NPOV, Im just not agreeing we have a clear case of opinions being stated as facts. If there's even one credible and reasonably non biased economic historian who challenges the statements made in Wikipedias voice, I'll gladly admit I was in the wrong. Other than that, if you don't want to address any remaining concerns by adding "according to" type qualifiers, I guess we're at an impasse and should wait to see what others have to say? FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The material in question is the synopsis of a book. It is a given that the text represents the statements of the author of the reliably published book, not the "voice of Wikipedia". I suggest that you reread WP:NPOV, because I think that your assertion represents a misapplication of that policy. Nonetheless, I have rewritten one sentence to forestall the removal of substantial blocks on the basis that there is a violation of NPOV. I will look through more of it later.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 06:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Suggesting to an editor that's been on Wikipedia for almost ten years that they read WP:NPOV is just a passive-aggressive personal attack. Especially when you yourself get WP:NPOV so wrong. Hint: it is not a "given".Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from using false and misleading edit summaries

Ubikwit, in your revert here [9] you claimed to be "restoring the consensus version". It's blindingly obvious that that version does NOT have consensus. I would appreciate it if you tried engaging in good faithed editing and did not try to claim the mantle-ship of consensus when you clearly don't have it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

As has been pointed out above, before the recent onslaught of reverts without a cause the current version has been a long-standing consensus version. A few haphazard reverts don't equate with a change in consensus.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 06:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek is right. Stop using misleading edit summaries and stop inventing "consensus" that supports whatever you want to do. That's not how consensus works.

The article was quite stable before you followed me here and started edit-warring. You have nobody to blame for the "recent onslaught of reverts", other than yourself. bobrayner (talk) 08:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The article was quite stable before you starting reverting the long standing consensus text without a policy-based rationale. And the article got even less stable after your Collect and Volunteer Marek showed up following my revert of your revert.

Your weak arbitrary assertions about right and wrong are neither here nor there. Note that only you, Collect and VM (who both showed up for the first time after I reverted your revert) are pushing for the removal of long-standing consensus material from this article, apparently because you don't like it, because you have not produced any coherent arguments in support of your reverts.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

"Stable" does not mean "consensus" (and of course, consensus can change, which if you got at least 3 users disagreeing with you...). There's a lot of crap on Wikipedia that's "stable" for years. Until someone notices it and improves it. If we privileged "stable" we'd never get article improvement. Which is why we don't. There isn't a single policy out there which says that "stable" is some kind of privileged natural state. In fact we have wording in policies which suggests the very opposite ("Wikipedia is always improving" etc).

And you really got some serious chutzpah to claim that "Collect and VM" followed you here, when you were clearly engaging in revenge-reverting bobrayner (I've edited the article on "Shock therapy" quite a bit so this was already on my watch list).Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

You have done nothing to build a new consensus, and your edit summary related to NPOV and Wikipedia's voice is the most misleading, as has been described above. Moreover, instead of simply trying to improve the article by editing the text in accordance with the exceedingly minor and practically inconsequential "NPOV Wikipedia's voice" complaint, you chose to engage in a massive revert of material, apparently because you don't like it.

Collect made a BRD edit, fine. We discussed it and restored the long-standing version with some slight modifications to accommodate your concerns about NPOV, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the complaint was valid in the first place.

If the text is going to be modified, then it has to preserve the ability to convey the meaning thus far presented, as that makes the sophisticated concept presented in the book accessible to the Wikipedia reader.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I note the "Imperial 'we'" there -- it looks at this point that your "consensus version", isn't. I suggest you move with the times lest your "I own this" attitude become problematic. Synopses should be short and not try to present the entire book here. Collect (talk) 11:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

You have been told point blank that your text contained factually inaccurate information by one editor, and I disagree with your notion of synopsis. A synopsis has to be coherent so that the gist of the text subject to the synopsis is intelligible to the reader. Not only did you misrepresent (for whatever reasons or on the basis of what information) a salient point in the book, you have obfuscated the overall import of the thesis by making it inaccessible to the Wikipedia reader. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: One editor is at 4RR -- reverting three independent editors in just over a day. If he does not self-revert, a report will be filed at WP:AN/EW but I am offing him a chance to back down here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Two entirely different blocks of text were reverted, one your so-called BRD text, which has been reverted by two editors including myself. This is not the place for such postings. If you think you have a case, then take it to the EW board or revert the above post.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit war does not concern itself with the claim that "I reverted two different sets of words with the intent of restoring my own personal consensus" as the excuse. The fact is that unless you self-revert, you will be reported for edit war. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, Ubikwit was not restoring their "own personal consensus" but a version that has been largely unchanged since 2008, thus possessing long standing consensus. I see you've already filed a report, so will comment on the admin board. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

How this relates to article improvement is extremely vague. See H:ES for more guidance. Proper use of edit summaries in disputes is laid out at WP:REVTALK. This page is for a discussion of the article text and "replying" to an edit summary (which does not appear on this page) is not helpful. Above we see a concern about edit summaries being raised and then the discussion degenerates into a dispute about consensus v stable, 3 & 4 RR, proper syntax as to "we", pushing, etc. (Supplying the diff for the particular ES did not tell us anything that we did not already know: E.g., there is a dispute going on.) So I'll advise that if there are problems with inappropriate edit summaries, they should be either ignored, or warned about on the user talk page, or reported for NPA, AGF, etc. – S. Rich (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I would agree with that, and let's hope that VM, who started this section, takes note.

Part of the problem is that two of the protagonists here have been deleting material and reverting without Talk page discussion, starting on June 7th with the deletion of substantial material and an edit summary deriding the synopsis as a "manifesto".

When editors leave only vague, unsubstantiated edit summaries, Like "restore the NPOV version", and "npov. Avoid Wikipedia voice", what else do you have to respond to on the Talk page?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC regarding synopsis

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

[10] claims to present a synopsis of the book discussed. WP:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article states "While longer descriptions may appear to provide more data to the reader, a more concise summary may in fact be more informative as it highlights the most important elements." Does the shorter version accurately synopsize the book? 17:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I sought as best I could to accurately reduce the length of the current synopsis, to improve its readability, and to conform with the best practices of the appropriate Wikiproject. If it errs, I would suggest it be emended and not thrown out with the bathwater. On a readability level, the current version of the section is less readable than 97% of all Wikipedia articles, which I consider abysmal [11]. The current version of the entire article is less readable than 78% of all Wikipedia articles. Collect (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The so-called "short version" omits far too much relevant information, so much as to render the gist of the book and the various concepts developed in the book completely inaccessible to the reader.

Aside from the gross omissions, it has been pointed out above several times that you introduced blatantly false material misrepresenting the statements and position of the book. Rather than improve the article, the so-called "short version" makes the most important section unintelligible. If the reader doesn't have a comprehensive and intelligible synopsis as a reference, the Praise and Criticism sections are rendered inaccessible, because the context is lost, so the synopsis is key.

Furthermore, the claim about readability are inadmissible in relation to a book of this level of complexity, and there is no relevant policy you site to support the claim, because we edit here on the basis of policies and guidelines such as WP:DUE. Everything in the synopsis that has been in the article since 2008 meets WP:DUE.

It was you that threw the good text out with the "readability" bathwater, not the other way around. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with Ukbikwit. The shorter version does not accurately synopsize the book, except where it closely paraphrased the previous version. Additionally, while we are not required to comply with the project level advise you cite such as WP:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article , that page says: "Synopsis should be between 400 and 700 words (about 600 words), but should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reason such as being complicated." The proposed shorter version had only 307 words and so was non compliant. Whereas the current version has 670 words and so is perfectly compliant.

On a more positive note, thank you Collect for raising the important readability issue. I'll have a quick go at addressing it. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

With the freshly revised version of the long standing synopsis, Im now getting a readability score of 46, putting the section in the top 59%. Not ideal, but the subject matter is fairly complex global politics, so not easy to accurately reflect without a few long and nuanced sentenced. Also added a few "Klein relates" type qualifiers which may allay some of the concerns about Wikipedia's voice. No objection if any want to add further qualifiers. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Neither of the versions sited in the RFC above are particularly good. The current version is better than both, though it could still use some work. Bonewah (talk) 16:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the current version is an improvement, both in terms of length and in terms of neutrality - we should try to avoid presenting Klein's ideas in wikipedia's voice. However, there may be room for further improvement. bobrayner (talk) 22:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the current version is an improvement on both previous versions. However, it should be expanded and cleaned up to make the language more encyclopedic. LK (talk) 08:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The bot sent me. I agree with FeydHuxtable's detailed version over Bobrayner's. The effects described do not exist in a vacuum, and ignoring the mechanism of cause and effect does a tremendous disservice to the readers and society at large. Trying to censor an accurate synopsis to remove that which may be offensive to some because it is politically unpalatable shows a near complete lack of regard for accuracy, the WP:NPOV policy, those of us who are here to build a WP:COMPREHENSIVE encyclopedia, and again, a lack of respect for the readership and their society. EllenCT (talk) 00:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

"Trying to censor an accurate synopsis to remove that which may be offensive to some because it is politically unpalatable shows a near complete lack of regard for accuracy, the WP:NPOV policy, those of us who are here to build a WP:COMPREHENSIVE encyclopedia, and again, a lack of respect for the readership and their society." I dont think thats really what happened, and in any event, no need for you to fan the flames of a dispute that was already admirably worked out. Bonewah (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Bot sent me also. This appears to be another inconclusive RFC due to a poorly formulated question. If the goal here is simply discussion, then an RFC is unnecessary. If a formal process is desired then we need to start with a simple neutral question without referencing policy or guidelines and we need a survey section where we can respond without long discussion threads (as well as a disussion section). Jojalozzo 12:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• There are a couple things in play, the longer version is poorly written. The shorter version is perhaps too brief and doesn't portray the text very well. I haven't read the book but based on this article it sounds like incoherent rambling mush. Points made in the critical reviews aren't well-supported in the short synopsis. This article needs new editors, in my opinion. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
• The Bot sent me. The shorter version is better. And, I would shorten it even more by making a simple summary of the 'critical response section.' It's god-awful boring and WP is not here to sell books. Agree completely with Bonewah re: EllenCT comment. I don't think that's at all what happened either. And the "those of us who are here to build a comprehensive encyclopedia. . ." was hilarious. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reception section

Sorry, I don't buy for a second that each view has been given due weight here and have confidently added a NPOV-tag. Just look at the size of each part of this section. Favourable, 4 lines. Mixed, 4 lines. Unfavourable, 12 lines. And that when goodreads gives it a 4.22/5 based on 23,243 ratings. Clearly some people didn't like her criticism of capitalism, and wanted to write down every piece of criticism of the book they could find. It will not be difficult to find the opposing views. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• I couldn't agree more. The criticism section is bloated to the point of being WP:undue and should be trimmed significantly.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 04:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The section definitely seems to be biased toward unfavorable reviews, but because there was (to my knowledge) no book-related equivalent of Metacritic when The Shock Doctrine was released, it is difficult to gauge what overall reception was like, and therefore difficult to determine what would constitute a bias toward one side. AndrewOne (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Film

Please create the site also for the documentary. Kapeter77 (talk) 00:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Logic Error?

Maybe a logic error, but admittedly, maybe not. Chait's criticism of Klein's work -- where the article says "Jonathan Chait wrote in The New Republic that Klein "pays shockingly (but, given her premises, unsurprisingly) little attention to right-wing ideas. She recognizes that neoconservatism sits at the heart of the Iraq war project, but she does not seem to know what neoconservatism is" -- sounds like a poor argument to begin with. It might sound somewhat like arguing that an author criticizing the Catholic Church for its numerous misdeeds (especially the most recent revelations, with the priest scandals) should themselves be criticized for not being deeply knowledgeable about Catholic theology. Now, whether such a counterargument can or should be included in the article is probably beside the point, but I think it is worthy to point it out here... or, at least, somewhere in the intellectual universe.73.41.77.39 (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Boom and Bust

There used to be a phenomena of economic growth for a few years, followed by a recession, and then the cycle repeating. The impression was given that this was an unavoidable occurrence, like the seasons. But as people with liquid wealth are best placed to take advantage of such disturbances, I suspect that this process was deliberately engineered. Also the instabilities in the stock market. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.94.106 (talk) 06:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The criticism section

I've noticed someone trying to trim down the criticism section, which is not a problem in itself, but we need to make sure that the praise section is noticeably shorter than either the mixed or criticism section. Don't use three citations in the praise section when one will do, for example. 125.253.96.174 (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Why do we need to make sure that the praise section is noticeably shorter than the criticism section? 2A02:908:534:83E0:FCA3:3126:6091:39BC (talk) 05:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

"Developed"?

"Klein argues that neoliberal free market policies (as advocated by the economist Milton Friedman) have risen to prominence in some developed countries because of a deliberate strategy of "shock therapy"."

Shouldnt it be developing? - Joaquin89uy (talk) 13:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)